On PS3 EA Sports NHL 2012 when you play in speed up mode you can see S everytime a player takes a shot on the goalie, I think NHL.com has the samething. I am sure Larry can review that and show the % of shots from each location and then add on it a Quick and see where the shots him.

Even I would look good if I get 20+ shots from the point in my crest, without droping rebounds.

Holy crap you guys can get annoying. You've argued so hard against ol' Larry here that you've gone all the way past Quick's been "ok" to he's actually not that good. However you want to look at it, the bottom line is he hasn't let much in. Some of his saves have been very good, some have just been good positioning, but does it matter? He's hasn't been letting much in. That has to equate to good.

Puck wrote:Holy crap you guys can get annoying. You've argued so hard against ol' Larry here that you've gone all the way past Quick's been "ok" to he's actually not that good. However you want to look at it, the bottom line is he hasn't let much in. Some of his saves have been very good, some have just been good positioning, but does it matter? He's hasn't been letting much in. That has to equate to good.

I think the point people are trying to make is that Quick has not been the difference maker in the series. Our anemic, phantom, Vigneault-style, offense has been the difference.

Our goaltender's, while facing fewer shots, are making much tougher saves than Quick has been forced to make.

I'd almost bet my house and car that if we had started getting shots upstairs towards the outside of the net and not straight into Quick, we would be up 2-1 in this series. Everything that has been a decent look at the net and gotten off the stick of a Canuck player who is trying to go high and to the side on Quick.....well it has pissed the net.

Larry Goodenough wrote:LA used the same players, the same system and gave up the same types of shots all season. Most teams couldn't penetrate LA's defensive zone all season long. Yet his save percentage went from .929 to .980

That's not opinion, but fact.

Well riddle me this fact boy,

Are the Canucks supposed to be "most teams?"

"Most teams" in this league aren't cup contenders.

"Most teams" did not have one of the highest ranked PP's and overall GF's in the league.

The Canucks aren't supposed to be "most teams." We are supposed to be a team that can light an elite goalie's vagina on fire if we're playing our style of puck possession and high skill.......regardless of whether both twins are in the line up or not.

If you looked at your "facts", you'd also realize that outside of the San Jose series last year, the Canucks had difficulty scoring in every other series' of theirs.

The "facts" state that as talented as the Canucks are during the regular season, they simply do not produce anywhere near the same numbers offensively in the post-season when it matters most.

i think we have L.A right where we want them...we have been playing possum and the reasons are obvious...the East will be won by Florida and it would not provide any adversity if we won 16 straight games...all Canuck haters would sqwawk about it being a hollow victory and we had a cakewalk against a weak opposition...well...this 4 striaght wins comeback will allow us to boast about how we fought back game after game ...smoking joint after joint to help the guys along...i predict 16 wins in a row...back to my vapourizer...

Once again, poaching from Cam Charron over at Canucks Army from the last game:

"9-13 the scoring chances in this one, in LA's favour." But Vancouver outshot LA 41 to 20 by the shot count.

These kind of numbers do lend weight to the proposal that the shot count is not indicative of how much the Canucks are testing Quick. If the Canucks were testing Quick at the same pace as LA was testing Schneider, the Canucks would have had around 26 scoring chances, not 9.

Larry Goodenough wrote:LA used the same players, the same system and gave up the same types of shots all season. Most teams couldn't penetrate LA's defensive zone all season long. Yet his save percentage went from .929 to .980

That's not opinion, but fact.

Well riddle me this fact boy,

Are the Canucks supposed to be "most teams?"

"Most teams" in this league aren't cup contenders.

"Most teams" did not have one of the highest ranked PP's and overall GF's in the league.

The Canucks aren't supposed to be "most teams." We are supposed to be a team that can light an elite goalie's vagina on fire if we're playing our style of puck possession and high skill.......regardless of whether both twins are in the line up or not.

If you looked at your "facts", you'd also realize that outside of the San Jose series last year, the Canucks had difficulty scoring in every other series' of theirs.

The "facts" state that as talented as the Canucks are during the regular season, they simply do not produce anywhere near the same numbers offensively in the post-season when it matters most.

?

My point is Quick is playing extremely well and is posting very lucky numbers. The fact he's doing it against Vancouver, which you clearly state is a superior team proves my point even more, that he's stealing the series.

Puck wrote:Holy crap you guys can get annoying. You've argued so hard against ol' Larry here that you've gone all the way past Quick's been "ok" to he's actually not that good. However you want to look at it, the bottom line is he hasn't let much in. Some of his saves have been very good, some have just been good positioning, but does it matter? He's hasn't been letting much in. That has to equate to good.

Ol' Larry understands people are frustrated and it's only human nature to blame the home team rather than give the opponent some of the credit. It just feels better.

My point is Quick is playing extremely well and is posting very lucky numbers. The fact he's doing it against Vancouver, which you clearly state is a superior team proves my point even more, that he's stealing the series.

Hope that solves your riddle, boy.

And my point is that much like they did with Tim Thomas, the Canucks are making Quick to look way better than he actually is......due to an inability to get effective quality shots on him. Most of the shots we are getting on Quick are of low grade quality just as they were on Tim Thomas from Game 3 onwards.

Tampa Bay lit up Thomas quite easily in the series before, and I am willing to bet that other teams will score far more goals against Quick if the Kings are successful in advancing past the Canucks.

Farhan Lalji wrote:And my point is that much like they did with Tim Thomas, the Canucks are making Quick to look way better than he actually is......due to an inability to get effective quality shots on him.

Or you could say that the LA Defense (and system) is making Quick look good. We're not taking low % shots as a choice.

Just like Boston - if we can out-coach the system, then we're doomed to taking perimeter shots.

My point is Quick is playing extremely well and is posting very lucky numbers. The fact he's doing it against Vancouver, which you clearly state is a superior team proves my point even more, that he's stealing the series.

Hope that solves your riddle, boy.

And my point is that much like they did with Tim Thomas, the Canucks are making Quick to look way better than he actually is......due to an inability to get effective quality shots on him. Most of the shots we are getting on Quick are of low grade quality just as they were on Tim Thomas from Game 3 onwards.

Tampa Bay lit up Thomas quite easily in the series before, and I am willing to bet that other teams will score far more goals against Quick if the Kings are successful in advancing past the Canucks.

I've been basing my opinion on analysis that indicates shot quality is a myth.

Bottom line: shot distance/location/quality is just a tiny sliver of shooting percentage (both for and against.) When you factor in the 33% regression to the mean we see in odd and even samples, shot quality accounts for just under 10% of team shooting percentage.